Not all the books (that/which) you can find in a library are good for you.

[z7655431]

a. Not all the books which you can find in a library are good for you. (from my teacher's handout)
b. Not all the books that you can find in a library are good for you.
c. Not all the books you can find in a library are good for you.
Are they all correct? Sentence a is from my teacher's handout, but I think "which" is wrong; the correct word should be that or just leave it out, like sentence b and c. Am I right? And, can I say "are good to you" instead?

 

[Matthew Wai]

Sentence a is from my teacher's handout, but I think "which" is wrong

I think 'which' is correct because it can be used in both restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses according to http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/relative-clauses/

 

[z7655431]

The reason why I thought "which" is wrong is because there is a rule that says if there's "all" in the antecedent, then use "that", not "which".

 

[bhaisahab]

I find "that" more natural in that sentence.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the antecedent is 'the books' not 'all'.

 

[z7655431]

I think the antecedent is 'the books' not 'all'.

That's why I asked here. It's ambiguous. I am not sure if "all" is just part of the antecedent or it's the modifier of the antecedent, in this case, is "which" wrong and we can only use "that"? I want to know this.

 

[Matthew Wai]

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/all_1?q=all
Having read the above, I think 'all' is a determiner here, which is not the antecedent.

 

[Raymott]

On an unrelated issue, I'd remove 'can' from all of those sentences.

 

[Matthew Wai]

On an unrelated issue, I'd use 'that' instead of 'because' below.

The reason ... is because ...

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I've seen conflicting opinions, but as I understand it, all three are fine in British English.

In the US, we would only say "which" if there were commas after "books" and "library."

 

[Matthew Wai]

there is a rule that says if there's "all" in the antecedent, then use "that", not "which".

Do you mean something like 'Not all that can be found in a library are good for you'?

 

[TheParser]

b. Not all the books that you can find in a library are good for you.

NOT A TEACHER


I respectfully suggest that if a learner is planning to speak and write American English, then s/he might consider adopting the very easy American "rule":

Use "that" for defining clauses (such as "b" above) and use "which" for non-defining clauses, which require commas.

*****

I have made up an example of a non-defining clause: "Not all of these books, which you can find in a library, are good for you." If I remove the non-defining clause, the sentence still tells you the information that I wanted to share: "Not all of these books are good for you." I might be holding some books in my hands while I speak with you. "Which you can find in a library" is just some extra and non-essential information that I have "thrown" into the sentence.

*****

On the other hand, in sentence b, the clause is essential, for it indicates the particular books to which you are referring. If I said, "Not all the books are good for you," your listener or reader would not know what books you were referring to.

 

[z7655431]

Do you mean something like 'Not all that can be found in a library are good for you'?

Not really.

"Not all that can be found in a library are good for you."
According to the rule publishes in Taiwan, only "that" can be used.

But,
"Not all the books which/that can be found in a library are good for you."
According to the rule publishes in Taiwan, I am not so much sure if only "that" can be used. But I do see some books say only use "that" in this case. Anyway, if "all" is only a determiner of a antecedent, whether we can only use "that" or not is very confusing. I don't see a book have a clear statement on this.

 

[emsr2d2]

"Not all that can be found in a library are good for you" is ungrammatical.

"Not everything that can be found in a library is good for you."

 

[Matthew Wai]

Is 'All that' below grammatical?
'All that glitters is not gold.'── quoted from https://jakubmarian.com/all-that-vs-all-what-vs-all-which-in-english/

 

[bhaisahab]

Yes, Matthew.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Why 'All that' in post#15 but not 'Not all that' in post#14 grammatical?

 

[Matthew Wai]

Can 'all' in #14 refer to 'all things', which takes the plural verb 'are'?

According to the rule publishes in Taiwan ...

I advise you to refer to the rules stated by native speakers instead of Taiwanese.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I find "that" more natural in that sentence.

I do, too. MUCH more natural.

But I'd write it this way: Not all library books are good for you.

(Except I'm not convinced it's true!)

 

[Rover_KE]

I'm still wondering what 'library books are good for you' is supposed to mean.

Books on pregnancy, witchcraft, and string theory, for example, are no good for me.